[A2k] CIS statement at SCCR 28 on the proposed treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations

Nehaa Chaudhari nehaa at cis-india.org
Wed Jul 2 06:37:04 PDT 2014

*CIS Statement*

Thank you, Mister Chair.

Mister Chair, there are two things that I would like to talk about, on 
behalf of CIS- /first/, on justifications for this Treaty; /second/ on 
the scope and the rights sought to be granted under this Treaty, which I 
will speak of together, if I may.

On justifying the need for this Treaty, Mr. Chair, we would reiterate 
what we have said in past sessions of this Committee -- there has been 
no conclusive demonstration on the need for this Treaty and on why 
existing mechanisms in international legal instruments, including, among 
others TRIPS and the Rome Convention are not sufficient to address the 
concerns of the broadcasters. We have heard that these are insufficient, 
but no justifications as to why- something that KEI also pointed out in 
their statement before us. Further, Mr. Chair, we're concerned by the 
fact that the latest study on the unauthorised use of signals presented 
to this Committee is the one from 2010 at the 20^th Session of this 
Committee. We strongly support the proposal made by India, TWN, CCIA and 
TACD to update this study and include an impact assessment of ALL the 
stakeholders, something that the earlier study does not address; in 
order to more comprehensively assess not just the need, but also the 
impact of this proposed treaty, and address some of the questions and 
concerns raised by TACD and TWN in their statement earlier.

Without prejudice to this submission on the need for this treaty, Mr. 
Chair, we would also like to comment on the scope of, and the rights 
under this Treaty.

Mr. Chair, we would continue to submit that this proposed treaty should 
be based on a signals based approach and not a rights based approach. We 
have heard submissions by broadcasters at this and at previous sessions 
of this Committee, where the basis of seeking additional protection for 
broadcaster is to protect the underlying investment. Mr. Chair, 
investments made in infrastructure for broadcasting in the traditional 
sense are very different from those required for an IP based 
transmission, even if the same broadcaster is engaging in both. 
Therefore, Mr. Chair, given that the rationale for seeking this 
additional layer of rights over and above existing copyright is the 
protection of investment for broadcasting in the traditional sense is 
the , IP based transmissions should not be covered in any way under this 

Further, Mr. Chair, fixation and post fixation rights envisaged under 
Article 9 of Working Document SCCR 27/2/ Rev. and indicated in the 
Informal Document circulated today, are inconsistent with a signals 
based approach. We are strongly opposed to all of the rights indicated 
in the Third Row of this Informal Discussion Document. This Document, we 
believe, is moving the discussion towards a rights based approached and 
not a signals based approach, which we find deeply concerning. We also 
believe, Mr. Chair, that it is not logical to prescribe a term of 
protection (beyond the life of a signal), least of all 20 or 50 year 
term (as under Article 11 of this Working Document) for a signal that 
lasts milliseconds.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.


Nehaa Chaudhari
The Centre for Internet and Society
No. 194, 2nd 'c' Cross,
2nd Stage, Domlur,
Bangalore- 560071,
Karnataka, India.


Nehaa Chaudhari
The Centre for Internet and Society
No. 194, 2nd 'c' Cross,
2nd Stage, Domlur,
Bangalore- 560071,
Karnataka, India.
Website- http://cis-india.org/

More information about the A2k mailing list